The burden of proof

[gwozz]

By "convenient" I meant like getting an email from a wealthy middle eastern prince who needs to liquidate his assets but can only do so if you give him your bank account information!

I do get your point though and I can see how since something harder to obtain is valued more, Heavenly Father would not make it easy for us. The problem is that I also see that if the church weren't true, the exact same tactics would be used to get members to believe.

But if the church weren't true, you wouldn't have so many people testifying that they KNOW it is true because they got on their knees, and in prayer asked God if the Book of Mormon was true, and were sincerely willing to act according to the answer. That is the ONLY reason that I know this church is true, and the only reason I'm on this blog declaring that it is true. You want proof, read the testimony of the 3 and 8 witnesses to the book of mormon. How many historical accounts of the 1820s have 11 witnesses declaring the truthfulness of a single event? Usually its just a couple of journals which don't have a completely consistent story. and all these witnessess do not ask you to believe on thier words, but to kneel and ask God, who will tell you they are true. Other churches do not do this. Other churches (at least none that I have studied) do not tell their membership to pray and ask God if the church is true, and by that you come to know. This church is unique, because God tells its members that it is His church, and any person who seeks God, to do his will, and to submit to him, and is willing to ask, knows. Its that simple. But remember, you will receive no witness till after the trial of your faith (ether 12:6). I know my faith was sore tried before I came to know, so I can sympathize with you and encourage you to press forward--God will tell you the truth if you seek his will. He's promised to tell you. Rely on him and no other.

[Dr T]

Hello gwoss,

You said,

But if the church weren't true, you wouldn't have so many people testifying that they KNOW it is true because they got on their knees, and in prayer asked God if the Book of Mormon was true, and were sincerely willing to act according to the answer.

That just is not true. Majority of something does not necessarily make it correct/true (if that's your underlying point.)

[utcowboy]

I find it interesting that no one has quoted Chapter 6 of the D&C yet.

22 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might aknow concerning the truth of these things.

23 Did I not speak apeace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater bwitness can you have than from God?

We have been told multiple times that if we sincerely seek the truth that the Lord will speak peace to our minds as well as feeling the spirit.

[KosherXMorg]

Hello gwoss,

You said, That just is not true. Majority of something does not necessarily make it correct/true (if that's your underlying point.)

True, the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) has many times more members and they will tell you in no uncertain terms that Benedict is THE Vicar of Christ

[gwozz]

Hello gwoss,

You said, That just is not true. Majority of something does not necessarily make it correct/true (if that's your underlying point.)

you're right, majority doesn't mean anything. that wasn't what I was trying to get at, but valid. That said, the nature of the witnesses is very different than what other churches teach/preach--its focused on the individual finding a witness directly from God, not trusting what other say.

[Islander]

I find, on the average, gnostic arguments quite bland. My theory is that some folk just do not want to bother with God. It interferes with whatever it is they are doing.

One of the best evidence of God is order and purpose in design. I think it is actually quite difficult to prove the contrary. We have been peering into space for 10,000 years and have seen nothing that resembles intelligence out there. The first radio waves were sent in the 40's and recently photo-coded (fiber optic emitted) signaling was sent just a few years ago. Such signals have already traveled billions of light years from earth and no response yet from the other side.

Statistically speaking, the chance that earth and the inhabitants thereof are "just an anomaly" of this vast universe is ZERO. There is in fact no evidence of greater complexity or better design than the eco-system we inhabit. Of course, the above will not convinced those that refuse to be confused by the facts. They already made up their minds.

[Vanhin]

...The first radio waves were sent in the 40's and recently photo-coded (fiber optic emitted) signaling was sent just a few years ago. Such signals have already traveled billions of light years from earth and no response yet from the other side.

Though I appreciate what you are saying, I just wanted to point one thing out. The radio signals that were sent in the 40's have not even traveled 100 light-years yet. Just like visible light, radio waves are electromagnetic radiation and travel at the speed of light; and light is able to travel one light-year (in a vacuum) in one year. So, I'm certain the signals have not traveled even one billion light years in some 60/70 Julian years, which would be way faster than light.

We do have over 40 star systems less than 20 light-years from us, and no one has responded yet as far as we know. So, I get what you are saying.

That's all.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Finrock]

...I have been told many times to read the Book of Mormon and pray on its truthfulness, because that is the only way to KNOW whether it is true or not. I know that for some people, the feelings they receive in response is enough, but that simply isn't enough for me. I am well aware that this is the gap that faith is meant to fill, but deep down I can't help but think how convenient it is that everything must be taken on faith and then you will receive reinforcement through feelings. This is the same system that nearly every religion uses to get and keep followers which means it has a good chance of working whether the church is true or not.

Why must we rely on such an unreliable method if we are to find truth in religion? I know there is the standard answer of "that's just how it works", but from my point of view, that seems more like an excuse than an answer. If feelings were a reliable method of determining truth, there would be no dispute over which religion is correct, people would simply pray and be led to the correct religion.

Good Afternoon DigitalShadow! I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your post. For the most part I have read the responses that other's have made and your responses to those. I do not forsee me adding anything new to what has been posted except my own perspective on this issue. I hope that you find my post useful and edifying.

I would like tackle what I perceive to be a misconception on your part. You wrote in your post that you would like to have a method to know truth more reliable than just "feelings". First of all, I agree with you. It is imparitive that one does not make a decision of such magnitude based merely on a feeling. The late President Hunter cautioned:

"I get concerned when it appears that strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings, including tears, but that outward manifestation ought not to be confused with the presence of the Spirit itself" (Source).

There is no doubt that some people do equate "strong emotion" and "free-flowing tears" as a manifestation of the Holy Ghost. However, there truly is a higher standard to a spiritual witness, which may not have anything to do with tears or strong feelings. So, the misconception I would like to clear is this idea that when one speaks of receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost, in the true sense, this isn't speaking to just a feeling, but it is speaking to a sense of enlightenment and profound understanding. Because these experiences are difficult to describe in words it often is misunderstood as sentimentalism (an experience any good drama, for instance, can reproduce).

Now, as has been pointed out by others on this thread, the formula for receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost is not magic or anything particularly special. It essentially follows a pattern that most of us are already familiar with. Let me briefly describe this pattern so as to make certain that there are no misunderstandings.

The first time we do anything, we cannot be certain of the promised results at first. This is applicable to almost anything that we might do. The first time I considered riding a bike, I was not certain at all that I could ride it. As a matter of fact, I would say that I knew that I could not ride a bike. I listened to what was explained to me about riding a bike. I beheld others riding bikes and I saw how they were doing it, but I didn't really know a thing about riding a bike. It wasn't until I actually decided to take a risk, based simply on a belief that I could be successful, that I began to learn, to know, how to ride a bike. As I practiced and continued to apply those things I've been told about riding and what I myself learned from failed attempts, I eventually learned how to ride a bike. I now know how to ride a bike.

These same principles apply to gaining a knowledge about eternal truth. This is how you gain a knowledge about the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Vanhin quoted from Moroni the words of Mormon who, more or less, said that we could know what is right because it will encourage us to do that which is good. Galatians also describes the fruits of the Spirit as "joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance." These attributes are good and it is through these attributes that one can come to know what is true. The critical thing to understand at this point, though, is that when one feels and experiences these fruits of the Spirit, this is the Holy Ghost testifying of the truthfulness of whatever it is you are testing. However, you can not know these things if you do not begin to live the gospel principles that others have explained or born testimony of. Any more than you can know how to ride a bike, if you do not begin to practice on your own. As you begin to read the Book of Mormon, attend church, to pray, and to live the laws and doctrine of the church, you will begin to experience the fruits of the Spirit, and you will begin to know of it's truth because you will know that that which you do is causing you to do that which is good and that which is good can not be wrong or bad. Furthermore, God will bless your efforts as you begin to exercise faith, and you can know, through a spiritual manifestation, that these things are true.

As has been pointed out, there is no other way. If you can not accept this method of coming to understand God and know truth, then you will remain in ignorance to these things for the rest of your life. There is nothing more profound or any other proof available. No man or woman will ever be able to prove to you that these things are true.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post, if you did make it this far. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[poulsenll]

Why must we rely on such an unreliable method if we are to find truth in religion? I know there is the standard answer of "that's just how it works", but from my point of view, that seems more like an excuse than an answer. If feelings were a reliable method of determining truth, there would be no dispute over which religion is correct, people would simply pray and be led to the correct religion.

I know I've gone over some of this in my other threads, and those who know me are probably sick of all this already, but I still haven't really resolved anything, so I will continue to post my most recent thoughts on the subject and see what other people think.

I was just looking at Brant Gardners presentation at the FAIR conference in 2006. He presented an example that may be related to your problems. It is called "seeing the dog".

Here is the dog.

All you see at first is a bunch of spots. However if you stop looking at the individual spots and try to look at the picture as a whole you will see a dog. Once you have seen the dog, you will not be able to not see the dog.

Brant used this illustration to point out that no single piece of data that supports the Book of Mormon is conclusive or even somewhat compelling but when taken together and in context with each other they form a picture that is compelling. And just like with the dog, once you have seen it, you will always see it. It is somewhat like this with gaining a testimony of the restoration. However if you concentrate on the parts of the picture that are not a part of the dog, you will never see the dog.

For those of you who have not yet seen the dog, here it is.

Just as with this picture, the dog only includes a small portion of the total number of spots in the picture but once seen is always clearly there. So does the gospel of the restoration only include a small part of the data available to us but once seen , it stands out against the background.

Larry P

[DigitalShadow]

But if the church weren't true, you wouldn't have so many people testifying that they KNOW it is true because they got on their knees, and in prayer asked God if the Book of Mormon was true, and were sincerely willing to act according to the answer. That is the ONLY reason that I know this church is true, and the only reason I'm on this blog declaring that it is true. You want proof, read the testimony of the 3 and 8 witnesses to the book of mormon. How many historical accounts of the 1820s have 11 witnesses declaring the truthfulness of a single event? Usually its just a couple of journals which don't have a completely consistent story. and all these witnessess do not ask you to believe on thier words, but to kneel and ask God, who will tell you they are true. Other churches do not do this. Other churches (at least none that I have studied) do not tell their membership to pray and ask God if the church is true, and by that you come to know. This church is unique, because God tells its members that it is His church, and any person who seeks God, to do his will, and to submit to him, and is willing to ask, knows. Its that simple. But remember, you will receive no witness till after the trial of your faith (ether 12:6). I know my faith was sore tried before I came to know, so I can sympathize with you and encourage you to press forward--God will tell you the truth if you seek his will. He's promised to tell you. Rely on him and no other.

One of my main points is that there are people testifying that they KNOW other churches are true as well. Are you saying that your KNOWING is somehow better than these other people's KNOWING? This is all I mean when I say feelings are an unreliable source.

I really don't want to get into a debate about history, but 11 people testifying that something happened proves nothing other than the fact that 11 people can agree on something and stick to their story. Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Islander]

Based on that rationale, most of science remains "hidden" from plain view. Many of what we know to be true based on quite complex mathematical assertions and experiments can not be proven in layman's terms. In fact we knew certain things to be true even before we could prove them in any physical way.

That is what some Holocaust opponents claims. There isn't enough evidence of it and the survivors ALL suffer from PTSD.

[YellowLight]

One of my main points is that there are people testifying that they KNOW other churches are true as well. Are you saying that your KNOWING is somehow better than these other people's KNOWING? This is all I mean when I say feelings are an unreliable source.

I really don't want to get into a debate about history, but 11 people testifying that something happened proves nothing other than the fact that 11 people can agree on something and stick to their story. Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Exactly. How do you tell people who are of another faith that their religion is wrong or does not contain all the truth when they can say the same thing to you. I have prayed about it and God told me that my religion is true and that mormonism is false. How do you respond?

[DigitalShadow]

I find, on the average, gnostic arguments quite bland. My theory is that some folk just do not want to bother with God. It interferes with whatever it is they are doing.

And on average, I find theistic arguments to be quite bland and simplistic. "I don't understand how this happened, so God must of done it."

One of the best evidence of God is order and purpose in design. I think it is actually quite difficult to prove the contrary.

Actually that is one of the most shallow and logically flawed arguments for the existance of God. If order can only come a creator, who created the creator and then his creator before that? Wait, let me guess... God just IS. I fail to see how that is a more logically sound argument than leaving out the God step and saying the universe and the rules governing it just ARE.

We have been peering into space for 10,000 years and have seen nothing that resembles intelligence out there. The first radio waves were sent in the 40's and recently photo-coded (fiber optic emitted) signaling was sent just a few years ago. Such signals have already traveled billions of light years from earth and no response yet from the other side.

As Vanhin pointed out, radio waves travel at the speed of light and so the amount of light years they have traveled is the same as the amount of years ago they were sent out. Divide that in half for the trip back assuming they reached some form of life that comprehends the signal and sends a response back and we're limited to solar systems ~30 light years away. Not to mention this assumes that both the lifeforms on this other planet and our planet are listening in all directions nonstop for some type of signal (even our SETI program only scans a miniscule fraction of the sky) AND realize that the signal had some intelligence behind it.

To sum it up, saying there is no other life out there in the universe because we haven't heard from them yet is a rediculously undefensible claim.

Statistically speaking, the chance that earth and the inhabitants thereof are "just an anomaly" of this vast universe is ZERO. There is in fact no evidence of greater complexity or better design than the eco-system we inhabit. Of course, the above will not convinced those that refuse to be confused by the facts. They already made up their minds.

And how many other planets outside of this solar system have you even seen pictures of? We know of VERY few planets outside our solar system (extrasolar planets), not because planets are a rare occurance, but because trying to see them with a telescope is near impossible because of the brightness of the star they are next to. Most of the extrasolar planets that we know of are merely inferred from the gravitational tug they exert on the star they orbit. So to say that nothing like our ecosystem exists in the universe is a another rediculous claim.

I completely agree that the chance that life would arise out of the chance occurances that happened on our planet is miniscule. What you are not taking into account though, is that there are ~100 billion stars JUST in our galaxy. There are an estimated 200 billion galaxies visible to us. Even if there is only a 1 in a billion chance that life would spontaneously occur at any given solar system, the universe would still incredibly be full of life.

So far I see no "evidence" that you have presented, only an argument from incredulity.

[DigitalShadow]

I was just looking at Brant Gardners presentation at the FAIR conference in 2006. He presented an example that may be related to your problems. It is called "seeing the dog".

Here is the dog.

All you see at first is a bunch of spots. However if you stop looking at the individual spots and try to look at the picture as a whole you will see a dog. Once you have seen the dog, you will not be able to not see the dog.

Brant used this illustration to point out that no single piece of data that supports the Book of Mormon is conclusive or even somewhat compelling but when taken together and in context with each other they form a picture that is compelling. And just like with the dog, once you have seen it, you will always see it. It is somewhat like this with gaining a testimony of the restoration. However if you concentrate on the parts of the picture that are not a part of the dog, you will never see the dog.

For those of you who have not yet seen the dog, here it is.

Just as with this picture, the dog only includes a small portion of the total number of spots in the picture but once seen is always clearly there. So does the gospel of the restoration only include a small part of the data available to us but once seen , it stands out against the background.

Larry P

I've linked this before, but I think this video explains the phenomenon better:

TED | Talks | Michael Shermer: Why people believe strange things (video)

Basically people easily see what they want to see when given "random" data.

[poulsenll]

You are right if you are talking about random data such as clouds and trees. The problem is that with the dog the data is not random it consists of a set of interrelated data (spots arranged to form a picture of a dog) placed in an envirement of random data (unrelated spots). Yes the mind sees what it wants to see but in the case of real data camaflaged by random data of a similar appearance to the single units of the camaflaged data, once the organized data is recognized then it is no longer random and as Brant says as well as others in the field of visual camaflage, it becomes real and you then can not not see the dog. The more the real data appears to be similar to the random data the harder it is to see but that does not preclude its being there.

Larry P

[Guest Xzain]

I have not seen any external evidence supporting the Book of Mormon or any religious text for that matter. Many people point to "coincidences" and claim they are ample evidence, but the problem is that if you really want there to be evidence for something, you will see it in coincidences and disregard anything that goes against it. The great thing about science is that it accounts for that and looks for repeatable experiments and evidence from multiple sources that supports the same conclusion independently.

I have seen external evidence that does not contradict the Book of Mormon, and in fact validates some of its claims. For example, before the ample quantities of ancient records on metal plates were found, critics said Joseph lied because 'no one wrote on metal plates in the olden days'. Lo and behold, now there's an entire tower in London dedicated to the historicity of metal plates as viable records.

I agree no amount of evidence is conclusive, but I believe God made it that way- if there was ironclad proof our faith would go unexercised, and faith is 'the principle of action in all intelligent beings' (according to Joseph Smith).

And if you found a mysterious cookbook that calls for ingredients that don't make sense together, tried its meals and determined they did not taste good, how would you react? What if the cookbook then said that only those who have faith the meal will taste good will enjoy it? I'm sure if you convince yourself it should taste good or grew up eating it, it would actually taste good to you, but that doesn't mean there's any point in it.

Well, having tested the analagous cookbook and found veracity to its claims, I find no qualms in the truth of the matter here.

You are right- if the cookbook resulted in horible meals, then it simply was a fraud.

Of course, you had to make sure that you had all the ingredients, allthe preperation, and all the desire to know how to cook the meal correctly. Sadly, finding the truth about the Book of Mormon is not as simple as following a cooking recipe (by its own admittance).

Nearly all churches encourage you to pray, if people got responses along the lines of "your church isn't true", I don't imagine they would stay with their church very long.

Yes, almost all churches encourages one to pray- however, mere prayer does not bring about spiritual witness. There must be premeditation, study, faith, and desire present (even if it is in relatively small quantities).

You bring up an interesting point. I have never talked with anyone who said they received an answer the Church wasn't true. (I don't think you were implying this; but it is interesting so I am addressing it)

In fact I've read the story of a man from another Christian faith who believed God answers prayers and prayed for a witness that the Book of Mormon was false. He didn't get the answer he expected, and left his ministry (he was a priest) to join the LDS faith.

Again, I am aware of how you are "supposed" to do it, but it seems a bit too convenient to me that you can pray to Heavenly Father and he will tell you that the church is true, but only if you ask properly, have faith and ask about the "right" church. If we really are children of a loving Heavenly Father who want us to know Him and is our all-powerful creator, why couldn't he just lead anyone honestly searching to the "right" church?

No offense, but that's similar to saying

'I know how you're "supposed" to learn, but it seems a bit too convenient to me that you study the right subject and you learn from the book, but only if you do it properly, have confidence you can do it and study the right section of the book. If we're really pupils of a loving Schoolteacher who wants us to learn all about [enter subject here], why couldn't he just tell us what we need to know for the exam?'

Somewhat ironically, I agree somewhat with that thought. Heavenly Father does lead all who truly seek to His ultimate truth (which the Church is not an embodiment of, but merely a schoolhouse for learning about) in His own due time.

I have no idea what an "irreligionist" is, but I'm assuming it is some term for atheist and if that is the case, I don't think you are accurately portraying their thought process.

Sorry, I should be less ambiguous. I define 'irreligionist' as a diehard atheist who rejects any idea of divine authority and/or imperative.

However, I have not discussed 'absolute truth' with any atheist ('diehard' or not) when, I have fully realized their position, have not been able to boil it down to how I stated it above. They would word it differently, not using God at all, but it's the same idea.

Yes, I will agree that the steps to joining a religion require the same processes as anything else, but the problem with your analogy is that I don't want to join a religion any more than I want to be a gymnast. I am in search of the truth, and your religion (among others) claims to have it and so I am investigating that truth.

Again, Mormonism is the only one I know that explains exactly how to know for yourself and not depend on others for the truth.

You cannot analyze the veracity of Mormonism as you can any other religion (that I know of); by a mere discussion of theology.

[Traveler]

DigitalShadow: To whom falls the burden of proof? Must there be absolute proof before a thing is considered? Or believed? Must there be proof before we consider an option to what is established?

I have attempted to differentiate between proof and evidence in previous posts. In my life I have learned to realize undisputed proof of anything is elusive and often an illusion. More often than not we are left to deal with evidence that even in preponderance is not necessarily conclusive, or as we say in mathematics – the evidence is both necessary and sufficient. But lacking conclusive proof should never deter us from searching and making our best effort to interpret the evidence available to us.

The question I have for Digital Shadow is this; what evidence (or type of evidence) would you require in order to take the Book of Mormon seriously enough to say that you believe there is enough evidence (scientific?) that the Book of Mormon could be true – and then the next step; what evidence (or type of evidence) would you require in order to conclude that the Book of Mormon is inspired beyond the capabilities of the boy Joseph Smith of limited education in the frontier of early 19th century America?

I ask this because some (even on this forum) would not accept the Book of Mormon as inspired regardless of what-ever scientific evidence was provided. Heaven knows they choke and almost die rather that swallow a drop of evolutionary evidence – let alone the preponderance of evidence available concerning the Book of Mormon. If this is you status then there is no reason to proceed. Since I believe you are willing to discuss evidence and possibilities (as any scientist should) I will proceed.

So let us begin with something chronological and simple concerning evidence associated with the Book of Mormon:

The rise of pre-Classic civilizations of the ancient Americas: From what evidence have you concluded your understanding of the engine of that rise of civilization (especially from what was known in 1820 when Joseph claimed to have translated the record) – was the rise of pre-Classic civilizations triggered from what event(s) among existing indigenous peoples or from migrations caused by what, where and when? How does the evidence which currently holds your attention provide for your skepticism concerning the Book of Mormon?

BTW – can we conclude that missing evidence is not really evidence of anything? - That, unless there is specific reason to consider otherwise, we should draw our conclusions from the evidence that exist and the trend in the evidence that is being discovered and not upon evidence that may or may not be an expected missing puzzle piece but cannot be found.

The Traveler

[Tough Grits]

Fascinating.

I think the question is valid, and I think we all have to come to our own sense of what is true for us. Within the Church, we call this conversion. A person can be a member all their life...but at some point they must come to know the truth for themselves, separate and apart from what their parents taught them.

How do we find truth? Does it really come down to religion vs. science?

Hmm. I am not so sure. Because I believe that God is the creator of all things...including science.

When a scientist has a hunch about something...what exactly is that "hunch"? What is that feeling that keeps them motivated to keep going to prove their theory despite opposition, hardship, and disbelief?

Is that not the same for those who are religious? They believe something to be true. They have a hunch or feeling that they are right. They continue to explore and dig to find things that support their belief (scriptures, words of the Prophet, direction from leaders, etc.). What is that feeling inside their heart that confirms to them that they are on the right track? Within the Church, we call it the Spirit.

For us, that IS fact. I trust the Spirit. I believe that the Spirit directs me and guides me. For me, it is the same as Heavenly Father Himself standing before me and talking to me and guiding me.

I don't need to be in a lab. For me, the Spirit is as good as any test in a lab.

Science is wonderful. I don't have a problem with science. But too much of it is based on theory. Even within science, there is much contention and disagreement on certain theories. The word theory is NOT synonymous with fact. Theory is merely a word to explain a highly educated guess or idea. That's all. And science has many, many theories. Yes, some things science says are "fact", but so much is merely theory.

Science still can't prove how dinosaurs became extinct. But there are many theories.

Too many times something has been documented as fact, only to later be changed or amended. I own several astronomy books, some say that Pluto is not a planet...others say that it is, or that it is a sub-planet. Who is right?

As far as proof...

I do not have proof that my husband is absolutely faithful. However, I do not have proof that he has ever cheated either. But my heart and spirit tell me that he is honest and faithful. I believe this. I trust him. I trust the feeling that I have. Why do I need to dig for "proof" either way, if I am content and all is well? Shouldn't my spirit be trusted to lead me in the right direction for me?

Which goes back to my earlier words...for me, the Spirit is my proof. It works for me. I have a good life and I am happy.

I lived most of my life as agnostic. I remember what it felt like to desire hard facts in regards to God and religion. I am not ashamed of myself for they way I used to be or the way I used to believe, but I now know something, I now feel something, that I never felt before. I no longer question who I am or where I came from. I believe that I have found my proof and I have found my answers. That is good enough for me.

This is not a frivolous or dumb topic. It is very serious and very sacred. I do not condemn or ridicule those who are different than me. We all have our own minds and hearts. I love science...so many of the books that I buy from Scholastic Book Clubs through the elementary school are about earth, space, animals, etc. I want my children to know that they do not have to make a choice between religion and science. Heavenly Father organized this planet and all that surrounds it. Though we cannot ever begin to know all of the mysteries of the universe, for we do not have God's omniscience, that does not mean that we cannot appreciate science or the mysteries themselves.

BTW: ever noticed how the word omniscience has "science" in it?

[Elphaba]

For those of you who have not yet seen the dog, here it is.

Just as with this picture, the dog only includes a small portion of the total number of spots in the picture but once seen is always clearly there. So does the gospel of the restoration only include a small part of the data available to us but once seen , it stands out against the background.

Larry P

That is NOT where I saw the dog. Seriously!

Elphaba

[THIRDpersonviewer]

MANY people have a common misconception on faith. Individual faith is an individual belief that brings a person to act or live in accordance with their beliefs. It is not contingent on any Church or organization of which promotes a certain "faith." Faith as we talk about it, is individual and personal. Some people feel that their faith might be real and true, but in reality it is not there. They do not do things that follow their "beliefs." If their belief is true, honest, pure, sincere, and from the heart, THEN the person will act in conformity and alignment to their belief.

So how do I get an answer? Find the answer yourself, then ask him if your conclusion is right.

In short, the plan is I read and pray and do all I can do to know that something is true. Then you come to a conclusion of what you think it is. Do you think it is true, or do you think is not true? You have to come to the conclusion yourself, whether it be right or wrong, then you ask God if your answer is right. If your answer is right and you have put in sufficient effort, then you WILL receive an answer because God cannot lie. This answer will be of peace at the center, but may include joy and happiness and a tingling sensation of some sort. It will be unmistakable and clear, but only if you have put in the effort. The more effort you put in, the clearer your answer will be.

I would also like to point out that if you come to the conclusion that it is right, then you make plans to alter your life according to what you thus believe to be true. Essentially saying I will change my life, since I believe this to be true. This must be done in full sincerity of heart. If you HONESTLY do this, then you will receive answer. I can testify to this. I know it to be true. Once you pray and receive an answer, then you no longer just believe, but you know.

Here is some further clarification if this was not clear. Agency or Inspiration-Which?

[poulsenll]

That is NOT where I saw the dog. Seriously!

Elphaba

interesting. There are supposed to be more dogs there but I have not heard of any one else seeing any of them.

Larry P

[mike_uk]

I will give my own requirement for proof that I would need before again beleiving in the authenticity of the BoM.

1. I would excpect huge cities such as Zarahemla or Bountiful to still stand or atleast evidence of these cities. Afterall Jerusalem does.

2. I would expect some kind of references to these cities to be found, anything.

3. I would expect some references to names found in the BoM. Lehi, Nephi etc.

4. I would expect to have some evidences of the mass battles that took places there, especially Hill Cumorah where millions died.

5. I would expect swords, scimitars, shields, brestplates, arrows, chariots etc to have been found in vast quantities. I would have excpected atleast 1 arrow head. Even a charriot wheen or evidences of wheels.

6. I would expect to find evidences of the technology behind all the metallurgy that apparently happened back then.

7. I would excpet to have found some kind of evidence to back up Nephi's claim of building a temple patterned after solomns. Nothing has ever been found to back this up.

8. I would excpet to have found many many skeletons of horses that according to the BoM were spread throughout the land. Even a painting on a wall.

Basically, there really should be evidences of a mass population, in huge quantities but there is not.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

I will give my own requirement for proof that I would need before again beleiving in the authenticity of the BoM.

1. I would excpect huge cities such as Zarahemla or Bountiful to still stand or atleast evidence of these cities. Afterall Jerusalem does.

2. I would expect some kind of references to these cities to be found, anything.

3. I would expect some references to names found in the BoM. Lehi, Nephi etc.

4. I would expect to have some evidences of the mass battles that took places there, especially Hill Cumorah where millions died.

5. I would expect swords, scimitars, shields, brestplates, arrows, chariots etc to have been found in vast quantities. I would have excpected atleast 1 arrow head. Even a charriot wheen or evidences of wheels.

6. I would expect to find evidences of the technology behind all the metallurgy that apparently happened back then.

7. I would excpet to have found some kind of evidence to back up Nephi's claim of building a temple patterned after solomns. Nothing has ever been found to back this up.

8. I would excpet to have found many many skeletons of horses that according to the BoM were spread throughout the land. Even a painting on a wall.

Basically, there really should be evidences of a mass population, in huge quantities but there is not.

That is not the purpose of the Book of Mormon. The purpose is to testify of Jesus Christ through faith, not sight. We believe in Jesus Christ through faith, whether it be the Bible or the Book of Mormon or both.

[Misshalfway]

I will give my own requirement for proof that I would need before again beleiving in the authenticity of the BoM.

1. I would excpect huge cities such as Zarahemla or Bountiful to still stand or atleast evidence of these cities. Afterall Jerusalem does.

2. I would expect some kind of references to these cities to be found, anything.

3. I would expect some references to names found in the BoM. Lehi, Nephi etc.

4. I would expect to have some evidences of the mass battles that took places there, especially Hill Cumorah where millions died.

5. I would expect swords, scimitars, shields, brestplates, arrows, chariots etc to have been found in vast quantities. I would have excpected atleast 1 arrow head. Even a charriot wheen or evidences of wheels.

6. I would expect to find evidences of the technology behind all the metallurgy that apparently happened back then.

7. I would excpet to have found some kind of evidence to back up Nephi's claim of building a temple patterned after solomns. Nothing has ever been found to back this up.

8. I would excpet to have found many many skeletons of horses that according to the BoM were spread throughout the land. Even a painting on a wall.

Basically, there really should be evidences of a mass population, in huge quantities but there is not.

What if God purposely made sure that these kind of evidences were hard to find? What if the BofM is to be used to try the faith of His children? What if God wants more from His children than just a knowledge? How hard is it to exercise faith when all the answers are laid out for you? It is like me doing my kids homework for him. I do him a disservice by figuring it all out. There is power in such process. Knowing is important, but the process in which one comes to know is absolutely essential.

I think faith is an eternal principle. I think it is necessary for our future experience beyond the grave. It is the means thru which many important things are accomplished. Walking the walk of faith. Getting our knowledge from the source of light and truth. Allowing God to change us and improve us and expand us thru the process is so incredibly irreplaceable.

I venture to guess that if you had all the evidence in the world, you would still doubt. Because the lessons of stretching ones faith are the lessons that keep one strong against the wiles of the adversary.

[gwozz]

I will give my own requirement for proof that I would need before again beleiving in the authenticity of the BoM.

1. I would excpect huge cities such as Zarahemla or Bountiful to still stand or atleast evidence of these cities. Afterall Jerusalem does.

2. I would expect some kind of references to these cities to be found, anything.

3. I would expect some references to names found in the BoM. Lehi, Nephi etc.

4. I would expect to have some evidences of the mass battles that took places there, especially Hill Cumorah where millions died.

5. I would expect swords, scimitars, shields, brestplates, arrows, chariots etc to have been found in vast quantities. I would have excpected atleast 1 arrow head. Even a charriot wheen or evidences of wheels.

6. I would expect to find evidences of the technology behind all the metallurgy that apparently happened back then.

7. I would excpet to have found some kind of evidence to back up Nephi's claim of building a temple patterned after solomns. Nothing has ever been found to back this up.

8. I would excpet to have found many many skeletons of horses that according to the BoM were spread throughout the land. Even a painting on a wall.

Basically, there really should be evidences of a mass population, in huge quantities but there is not.

Make sure you have all your references ready and memorized for the judgment bar when you explain to God your solid case for why you were justified in rejecting His words...